A Sign of Strength

Some well-known conservative pundits have put themselves on the record calling for the withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination.

George Will

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

Charles Krauthammer

If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
...
To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution.

Bill Kristol

Gregory: "You have suggested she should and even might even step aside. Why?"

Kristol: "I think she should consider it. I think her nomination is a mistake. She doesn't have the intellectual distinction or the track record to really justify putting her on the Supreme Court. I think she should consider withdrawing her name, going to the President and saying 'thank you for the honor but I can serve you as WH counsel and there are plenty of other qualified people to go to the Supreme Court.'"

and here as well:

So what now? Bush has made this unfortunate nomination. What is to be done? The best alternative would be for Miers to withdraw. Is such an idea out of the question? It should not be.
...
President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was an out-of-the-blue act of loyalty to a longtime staffer. Is it too much to hope that she might reciprocate by withdrawing, thereby sparing her boss the chance of lasting damage to his legacy that her appointment to the Supreme Court may well represent?

Ann Coulter

To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 — I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.
...
However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advice and consent" means.

David Frum

My answer is: Don't trust me. Trust your own eyes. The woman is 60 years old, a lawyer for more than three decades. Can you see any instance in this long life and career where Miers ever took a risk on behalf of conservative principle? Can you see any indication of intellectual excellence? Did she ever do anything brave, anything that took backbone? Did anyone before this week ever describe her as oustanding in any way at all?

If the answers to these questions is No, as it is, then you have to ask yourself: Why is a Republican president bypassing so many dozens of superb legal conservatives to choose Harriet Miers for the highest court in the land?

How about former nominee Robert Bork himself?

[Bork] says it's, "a disaster on every level" because she has "no experience with constitutional law whatever". The nomination is a "slap in the face" to conservatives.

Hugh Hewitt has been catching a lot of javelins in this debate, but one point on which I disagree with him is the worry a fight over the nomination might cause serious damage to the GOP. In this post, Hugh writes:

There are many persuasive reasons beyond "Party" to support Harriet Miers, but "Party" ought to have at least tempered some of the most strident critics of the nominee. Nothing lasting will be accomplished with SCOTUS unless the GOP remains in power beyond 2008 and 2012. If the current seven veterans linger, and the GOP is crippled because of intra-party quarrels, how will President Hillary's and Vice President Obama's justices rule?

There is a great deal to be said for "Party," including the willingness to accept that the good must not be the enemy of the perfect, and that at least 25% of the time you are going to be disappointed with the Party's decision.

It is a sign of strength when a party can have a heated debate over something as serious as a nomination to the Supreme Court. Why? Because only a party confident that its message resonates throughout the electorate, confident that it is on the right side of important social, moral and economic issues, confident that it offers hope and freedom to this country and the world, only that kind of party can knock the dust off the rafters and still be secure in the knowledge the voters will remain loyal in the end, because in the end the voters will still hold the same values we do.

And the strength of our convictions and values will be all the more evident because some in the party stood up and said no, this is not who we are.

Our hold on voters is not such a frail house of cards that we must fear bumping the table lest our tenuous support come crashing down. That is the Democratic Party. The Democrats must abide the most fractured of crackpots in their party because they cannot afford to lose slivers of their support.

Fraters Libertas shares an email from a typical conservative, a fellow is now seething over this nomination. The post ends with this:

One of the arguments put forward by supporters of Miers is that her nomination is practical politics. They claim to be looking at the larger political picture and long term alignment of power. They talk of "incremental gains" and "moving the ball forward."

Which sounds all well and good. But who are the foot soldiers who are going to hold the political ground that conservatives have gained so far, to say nothing of expanding it further? Who is going to provide the money, time, and passion required to win the critical races in 2006, 2008, and beyond?

Don't look for Nathan, he's already gone.

Damage to the party? There is the damage to the party.

And I guarantee you, if Miers turns out to be as squishy as Justice O'Connor was on some issues, there will be a mass exodus from the GOP, and I'll be leading the way. I am as conservative as they come, I'm as evangelical as they come. I would love to see an evangelical on the court, but it is more important to have a Justice with a razor-sharp legal intellect who can make the case for an originalist philosophy. (Of course, such a person's votes would usually align with an evangelical's anyway.)

The way out of this is not to wring our hands and worry if the neighbors will hear us fighting. The way out is to be the party we say we are.

Withdraw or defeat this nomination, admit the mistake, and nominate the kind of person who should have been nominated in the first place. We'll survive, and be the stronger for it.

-----
(linked to Stop the ACLU and Mudville Gazette's Open Post)

Captain Ed correctly points out it would be a mistake to make Miers' evangelicalism the top selling point of her nomination.

Professor Bainbridge also questions using the faith card.

As part of his close focus on this issue, Professor Bainbridge argues this is a fight worth fighting.

Austin Bay is utterly underwhelmed, but, Mrs. Bay is whelmed.

Patterico looks at what Miers's friends are saying.

EckerNet wonders why we should simply trust President Bush.

Freedom Dogs points out the weaknesses in Miers' qualifications.

Psycmeistr is another example of the damage this nomination can do.

Kiihnworld has some good words on trust.

The Night Writer is underwhelmed.